Online report of the Progressive Review. For 54 years, the news while there's still time to do something about it.

July 11, 2016

The virtues of decentralizing government

From our overstocked archives

Sam Smith, 2011 - One significant reason liberals don’t do better these days is because they’ve
turned their backs on the sensible decentralization of government. They have
forgotten the devolutionary principles of the 1960s leftists or the fact that
many of their favorite issues - such matters as the environment, smoking laws,
marijuana, Real ID and gay rights – rose to prominence thanks to local and
state action long before there was federal interest. Instead, they tend to see
advocates of local decision making as reincarnations of pre-civil rights era segregationists.

This has all the logic of accusing people who raise children of being
pedophiles. In fact, decentralization is not only written into the Constitution
– albeit broadly ignored – but local action has been the secret behind every
major social and economic policy that has graced this land.

Imagine if abolition, labor unions, women’s and minority rights, or the ecology
movement had all been forced to wait until a congressional investigation or
presidential candidate found them interesting enough to hold hearings. Doing
things at the grassroots – whether as citizens, businesses or as local
government – has been what has repeatedly moved American forward.

At the present time, for example, the federal government and Washington are as
dysfunctional as at any period in our history. And it is a bipartisan
dysfunction, bought and propelled by dysfunctional lobbyists and made to seem
normal by a dysfunctional media. The obvious answer is to look down the pyramid
of power and to rediscover that wise principle of subsidiarity, namely that
government should be carried out at the lowest practical level.

For example, such functions as Social Security, Medicare and the Postal Service
are best carried out at the national level, but there is no logical – nor legal
–justification for the sort of federal interference now taking place in local
public education.

Here are some reasons for pursing the principle of subsidiarity:

- Americans like state and local government much more than the feds. A
Rasmussen report found that forty-three percent of U.S. voters rate the
performance of their local government as tops compared to its counterparts on
the state and federal level. Nineteen percent say state government is better
than the other two. Just 14% think the federal government does a better job.
Fifty-six percent of all voters believe the federal government has too much
influence over state government. Only 12% percent say the federal government
doesn't have enough influence over states.

- Americans not only trust local and state government more, they are really mad
– often with good reason – at the federal government.

- The
decentralization of the federal government can increase its effectiveness.
There are a number of federal agencies that are already quite decentralized.
Interestingly, these agencies are among those most often praised. The National
Park Service, the Peace Corps, the Coast Guard, and US Attorneys all have
dispersed units with a relatively high degree of autonomy and a strong sense of
turf responsibility by their employees. What is common to these agencies is
their close connection with the local. For example, one study found that US
Attorneys in Las Vegas and Nashville enforced drug laws the least, a reflection
of local values.

- A former Peace Corps regional director told me that in his agency's far-flung
and decentralized system, there was no way he could control activities in the
two dozen countries under his purview, yet the Peace Corps became one of the
most popular federal programs in recent times. Can the success of these
decentralized agencies be replicated, say, in housing and urban development?
Why not give it a try? If federal housing monies were distributed by 50 state
directors (vetted like US attorneys by the states’ senators) who were given
considerable leeway in the mix of policies they could fund and approve, we
would, for starters, begin to have a better idea of which programs work and
which don't.

- It’s not a radical idea. In the European Union it’s the law: "The
Community shall act within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by this
Treaty and of the objectives assigned to it therein. In areas which do not fall
within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance
with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of
the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and
can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be
better achieved by the Community.”

- The more power you give the top level of government; the more is being
granted a institution. The more power you give the lowest level, the more you
are giving to a community and to associations. John L. McKnight described it
this way: "The structure of institutions is a design established to create
control of people. On the other hand, the structure of associations is the
result of people acting through consent. . . You will know that you are in a
community if you often hear laughter and singing. You will know you are in an
institution, corporation, or bureaucracy if you hear the silence of long halls
and reasoned meetings." Here are some of the characteristics McKnight
found among associations in contrast to institutions: Interdependency; a
recognition of fallibility rather than the ideal; better at finding a place for
everyone; lacking large bureaucracies so can respond quickly; non-hierarchical
creativity.

- The more involved the federal government is in directing local affairs, the
greater the cost, time and paperwork. A study of Milwaukee County in 1988 found
government agencies spending more than $1 billion annually on fighting poverty.
If this money had been directly given in cash to the poor, it would have meant
more than $33,000 for each low income family -- well above the poverty level.

- Writer John Gall has said that "systems tend to oppose their proper
functions." Unfortunately, complex failing systems like the federal
government have little capacity to save themselves. In part this is because the
solutions come from the same source as the problem. Complex systems usually try
to save themselves by doing the same they have been doing badly all along --
only harder. This is because the salvation of the system is implicitly
considered far more important than the solution of any problems causing the
system to fail. . .

- The federal government’s own population is a little smaller than that of Los
Angeles. That means it is an institution that serves two groups: the United
States and a de facto city the size of LA. Which one it will be serving at any
particular moment is up to it and not to us.

- One of the states that best survived the Great Recession has been North
Dakota and one of the reasons is that it has its own state bank. Of course, the
federal government could have a national bank, but it doesn’t and it wouldn’t
be anywhere near as responsible to local conditions as a state institution.
Meanwhile, the North Dakota model is begging for other states to imitate.

- The further one becomes removed from a problem, the more it is likely to be
dealt with in an abstract fashion. The practical is inevitably downgraded.

- Our huge federal government has increased the class conflict in America.
Washington has become increasingly become a job factory for those with advanced
degrees, typical of only about eleven percent of Americans. The language,
thinking and action of this elite subculture puts the whole government at odds
with general America. It is abstract, technological, legalistic, bureaucratic,
and over dependent on data collection and analysis. This is a cultural, not a
political, matter. For example, one of Barack Obama’s biggest problems is not
that he is black but that he is a Harvard Law School graduate who doesn’t know
how to talk United States.

- Liberals are afraid to criticize big government because they think it makes
them sound like Republicans. In fact, the idea of devolution -- having
government carried out at the lowest practical level -- dates back at least to
that good Democrat, Thomas Jefferson, who spoke of the need for “little
republics.” Conservative columnist William Safire admitted that "in a
general sense, devolution is a synonym for 'power sharing,' a movement that
grew popular in the sixties and seventies as charges of 'bureaucracy' were
often leveled at centralized authority." In other words, devolution used
to be in the left's bag.

3 comments:

Anonymous
said...

I think it might be too late to just decentralize the fed government. At least for the states out west. We're really ready to go out on our own. Time to bring an end to this, dissolve the old union, and let each state determine it's own future. If some of those states wish to establish unions with some of the others, and vote to do so, that's fine. But the fed govt no longer serves any purpose but to perpetuate itself, and has long since stopped serving the people. It had a good run, but it's time to move on.

Political economy, political conditions of today far too advanced for a short post point toward a breakup of larger unions all across the the world. However there are countless little third world crap republics and evidently there will be even more created out of this coming global third world chaos. Making new little republics out of bigger failed ones will fix little to nothing, need far more advanced thinking.

SAY IT AGAIN, SAM

ABOUT THE EDITOR

The Review is edited by Sam Smith, who covered Washington under nine presidents, has edited the Progressive Review and its predecessors since 1964, wrote four books, been published in five anthologies, helped to start six organizations (including the DC Humanities Council, the national Green Party and the DC Statehood Party), was a plaintiff in three successful class action suits, served as a Coast Guard officer, and played in jazz bands for four decades.

ABOUT THE REVIEW

Regularly ahead of the curve, the Review has opposed federal drug policy for nearly 50 years, was a lonely media voice against the massive freeways planned for Washington, was an early advocate of bikeways and light rail, and helped spur the creation of the DC Statehood Party and the national Green Party,

In November 1990 it devoted an entire issue to the ecologically sound city and how to develop it. The article was republished widely.

Even before Clinton's nomination we exposed Arkansas political scandals that would later become major issues. .

We reported on NSA monitoring of U.S. phone calls in the 1990s, years before it became a major media story.

In 2003 editor Sam Smith wrote an article for Harper's comprised entirely of falsehoods about Iraq by Bush administration officials.

The Review started a web edition in 1995 when there were only 27,000 web sites worldwide. Today there are over 170 million active sites.

In 1987 we ran an article on AIDS. It was the first year that more than 1,000 men died of the disease.

In the 1980s, Thomas S Martin predicted in the Review that "Yugoslavia will eventually break up" and that "a challenge to the centralized soviet state" would occur as a result of devolutionary trends. Both happened.

In the 1970s we published a first person account of a then illegal abortion.

In 1971 we published our first article in support of single payer universal health care